Archives For right politics

The alt-right is anti-Christian. Not by implication or insinuation, but by confession. Its leading thinkers flaunt their rejection of Christianity and their desire to convert believers away from it. Greg Johnson, an influential theorist with a doctorate in philosophy from Catholic University of America, argues that “Christianity is one of the main causes of white decline” and a “necessary condition of white racial suicide.” Johnson edits a website that publishes footnoted essays on topics that range from H. P. Lovecraft to Martin Heidegger, where a common feature is its subject’s criticisms of Christian doctrine. “Like acid, Christianity burns through ties of kinship and blood,” writesGregory Hood, one of the website’s most talented essayists. It is “the essential religious step in paving the way for decadent modernity and its toxic creeds.”

 

The temptation to dismiss the alt-right should be resisted. Like Christians in late antiquity, we ought to see ourselves through the eyes of our pagan critics and their growing ranks of online popularizers. They distort many truths, through both malice and ignorance, and lead young men into espousing views and defending authors they scarcely understand. Yet we can learn from their distortions, and in doing so show how Christian theology, whose failings have contributed to the movement’s rise, might also be its remedy.

The alt-right’s understanding of human identity is reductive, and its rejection of Christian solidarity premature. “Christianity provides an identity that is above or before racial and ethnic identity,” Richard Spencer complains. “It’s not like other religions that come out of a folk spirit.” Spencer is right that the baptismal covenant transcends our local loyalties and identities. It does not, however, eradicate them.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/03/the-anti-christian-alt-right#login

It’s a strange argument. Is Andrew Anglin, who runs the neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer, more mainstream than Linda Sarsour? Are KKK rallies in Virginia better attended or more prominent than leftist anti-Jewish marches in Chicago? Of course they’re not. Why, then, the systemic focus on the alt-right? I pressed Gutnick for an answer; I never heard back.

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/241213/new-adl-guide-blasts-right-wing-anti-semites-gives-left-leaning-bigots-a-pass?utm_content=buffer85d2d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Cuiusvis homines errare; nullius nisi insipientes, in errore perseverare. Those are the wise words of Marcus Tullius Cicero  which are more poignant than ever when discussing today’s political discourse. As many who follow current events in the United States are aware this week the polarizing Ann Coulter made headlines as she was compelled by the powers that be into not conducting a guest lecture at the University of California at Berkeley. Naturally this has caused much turmoil between those on the right and principled liberals who value the American ethos found in the Constitution, and members of the progressive far left who believe certain ideas (not theirs of course) can be deemed hateful. With growing tensions in the community the school pulled out all stops to dissuade the event from happening citing past violence on the part of protesters as creating an unsafe environment. By declaring that safety is involved it gives the school the perfect alibi in the free speech debate without causing them to not appear against the principle and thus hypocritical. The local government of Berkeley has further shown its ineptitude by its insistence on not intervening in the situation and not performing its civic duties by protecting the rights of citizens in its jurisdiction. In other words Berkeley knows they are wrong but won’t do anything about it. The mayor of Berkeley has shown themselves to be ideologically aligned with those who infringe on the 1st amendment which is unbecoming of a public officer. The more troubling things I have been seeing though are the multitudes on social media who defend these actions due to a dislike of the individual speaker. This type of thinking is anti-enlightenment and has no place in American society and I shall explain why.

First I think I should go ahead and state that I in no way endorse the things Ann Coulter stands for or hold many of her political views. I was never a fervent Trump supporter and I don’t mind legal immigration unlike her. I also do have an affinity for the worlds game of football which I know she abhors. She is incredibly abrasive and I personally would not have gone to her lecture if given the choice. Those things being said, I still feel it is constitutionally imperative that her speech rights be protected and this scourge on the left is defeated. However I don’t believe violence to be the method to do so even if encountered with violence on the left.

This issue isn’t about protests. When people bring up the first amendment argument in defense of Ann Coulter’s right to speak at Berkeley it has nothing to do with not wanting other people to protest her coming. That is not the issue and a mere deflection from the heart of the matter which is that prohibiting others from going is criminal. You can protest outside the venue but what gives protesters the right to prohibit individuals from the right of entry into the venue? It appears some on the far left are unable to grasp that simple concept of not infringing on others right to assemble as well. Nobody is saying that the platform is part of the right. People are saying once the platform has been given then you need to conduct yourself in a civilized manner. Either attend the event and ask her questions or don’t attend at all. Rioting and becoming violent to prevent entry are not options.

I have seen some complain that this is simply a media spectacle and a right wing conspiracy. In some ways they are correct this is a media spectacle. The problem is the far left progressives are so obtuse and foolish that they are intent on falling right into the traps set by the right. Instead of behaving like mature adults with educations, they choose the barbaric route and in doing so turn Ann Coulter into a free speech martyr. It doesn’t even cross peoples minds that nobody would even know she went to Berkeley if the far left didn’t decide to shut down the event. Even the ACLU and Bernie Sanders are getting tired of this anti-constitutional tantrum nonsense on the left. You can’t complain about media manipulation when you walk right into the bear trap yet again. How can you refute the right wing claim of campus censorship with yet another public display of left wing condoned censorship? Remember what Cicero said, Cuiusvis homines errare; nullius nisi insipientes, in errore perseverare.

I don’t foresee these situations getting any better with both sides content to battle it out using violence if necessary. Its a sad state of affairs. The only bright side is it’s getting easier to identify those who believe in the Constitution and those who do when it suits their ideology.

 

 

I recently had the pleasure of listening to a Roaming Millennial stream in which she and another libertarian conversed with two white ethno nationalists concerning the concepts of white nationalism and their desires for a white ethno state in the United States. This brought about several different feelings upon hearing these views articulated from confusion to laughter as I attempted to grasp this strange and intellectually bereft world view. I have since been doing some digging in this strange microcosm of the Alt-Right and feel compelled to set the record straight when it comes to these ideas by drawing the lines between nuance and blind ideological ignorance. I have decided to compile a short list of some talking points along with my own personal analysis as to why this particular world view ignores historical precedent and is delusional in its attempt to grasp a utopian image of certain cultures.

I feel it is pertinent to state that my genetic ancestry and upbringing don’t lead me to agree with the world views being espoused by white nationalists. Despite my DNA consisting of 52% white DNA, I am under no delusions that I am acceptable to such people particularly those who grew up in the United States. In fact on multiple occasions I have seen ethno nationalists declare that it is mixed people such as myself that are the bane of white existence as I am contributing to some mythical “genocide.” Furthermore I have done constant traveling both abroad and domestically which in turn sways my views from a broad more global perspective on origin and nationality. By no means am I a preacher of multiculturalism and diversity. However that being said I tend to weigh both the pros and cons of the different multicultural ideologies and policies. By doing so I believe I am able to view things in a more objective way that is not contingent upon it agreeing with my chosen world view or ideology.

Immigration

Firstly I disagree with the constant reference to all white people in monolithic terms in an effort to play the identity politics game. I do not understand the constant need to collectively group people who would otherwise be opposed historically in the efforts of gaining political power today. Mind you political power and political gains are the crux of the whole white ethno national movement. The ultimate core of the ideology is the hopes that by implementing political action that time can be suddenly reversed along with the present day sociological make up of our present nation states. Now of course to the average learned individual this would appear to be a foolish aim: it is. Not only is reversing such times not feasible but it is not desired by the majority of the populations in question. I often hear white ethno nationalists cite the 1960s as this utopian goal which needs to be achieved. They often lament the immigration of non-white persons that supposedly occurred after this period despite the historical facts showing  overwhelming restrictions upon not only immigrants from Asian and Africa but also Eastern and Southern Europeans. They often characterize the immigration policy as changing to prefer non-white immigrants but that is simply not the case. Immigration in the United States simply evolved from an origin based system for selecting immigrants to a merit based one. A merit based system of immigration is infinitely more American in the constitutional sense than one based on national origin. So why is the influx of immigration from places besides Northern and Western Europe viewed in such a negative light and are there any compelling arguments for why this immigration needs to cease? From my listening to the arguments and further reading I have yet to find a convincing argument for doing away with current immigration practices. Immigrants especially today must be subjected to vetting and meritocratic formulations to be chosen for legal immigration into the United States. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that this population of non-white immigrants to the US are a net negative for American society.

Now lets hypothetically toy around with this ridiculous notion that ethno nationalists have in regards to immigration. Their proposal is for immigration especially for non-whites to simply cease to exist. Not only would this not be in line with American constitutional values but its simply not how America has done things even before the 1960s. Next step on their agenda is for non-white peoples to emigrate to their national countries of origin. For starters this would be a logistical nightmare in which authorities would need to DNA test every individual to determine their origin and level of whiteness. Additionally many immigrants and non-white persons in the United States no longer possess a country of origin to return to and would have no compelling reasons to leave their possessions and adopted homeland. This predicament is never addressed by white nationalists and ethno nationalists. So besides the logistical nightmare that is emigration what are they going to do about the historical implications? Are they going to go as far back as recorded history will allow or are they going to simply pick a time and essentially rewind human history until that time? Who are the deciders of said time and will it only be whites deciding which time period? These questions are not addressed.

Racial Hatred

I found it utterly ridiculous when I heard some white ethno nationalists attempt to classify the emotion of hate as not only a naturally occurring emotion, which granted it is, but rather its also a justifiable one. It is incredibly mind numbing to believe such brain twisting takes place where people take a negative emotion like hatred that is proven to be psychologically degenerative and destructive and attempt to paint it as justifiable manifestations of pride. I suppose their line of reasoning is that because our modern cosmopolitan societies involve different ethnicities living in close proximity to one another then this hatred to other ethnicities is not only inevitable but righteous hatred. Naturally this line of thinking is not only absurd but ignores the personal responsibility of the individual to choose to partake in our civilized society by observing the constitution. While I can understand being upset at certain policies and ideologies that can be viewed as threatening particularly left/progressive ideologies, I can not understand the intellectual leap that needs to take place from simply combating poor policy directives to moving on to such extreme and indefensible far right positions.

Often I see white ethno nationalists quoting DOJ crime statistics but naturally they only employ the use of statistics that support their narratives which are 1. that blacks are violent and 2. that violence would decrease if the ethnicities would not mix together. This of course is not only categorically false but dishonest in its analysis of statistical data. Yes the black community deals with a violence and crime issue but that is in large part due to the cultural implications in particular areas of the black community. This might blow a lot of ethno nationalists minds but not all blacks are the same culturally despite constantly being group into a monolith for political purposes. The blacks particularly in the south are the ones who are more violent than say ones from the northeast and in large part that is due to blacks adopting the predominant Scot-Irish culture post-civil war which is tribalistic and views violence as a solution to quarrels. This view can also be found in the Mongol and Arab cultures as well as the Scot-Irish and therefore is not unique to American blacks. But naturally I wouldn’t expect a ethno nationalist to grasp the nuance that needs to take place when distinguishing peoples cultures and of course they won’t acknowledge the negative aspects of the adopted Scot-Irish culture, a white culture.

Mixed Races

The ideas in regards to race mixing were rather archaic and arbitrary. They basically believe that all miscegenation laws would need to be put back into effect and that all mixed individuals would need to essentially pick a side. As a mixed individual I can say with complete confidence that these ethno nationalists and white nationalists are incapable of grasping the complexity that makes up an individual’s personal identity, especially if that individual is of mixed ethnic ancestry. They appear incapable of understanding how an individual would not feel torn internally simply because a certain ethnic group is unwilling to accept a mixed individual into their ethnic enclave. Whether a person is accepted or not is largely not up to that individual and therefore a mixed individual is largely at peace with their identity because how they are received is mainly not something that is controllable from the outside. I can’t control whether a person views me as white, asian, or black so why bother fretting over such trivialities?

 

Anyway these are my initial thoughts from delving into this bizarre subculture of nationalists. I imagine I will be writing more on the subject as I see fit and if I find points that need refuting. I can empathize with the feelings of ethno nationalists but the methods and desires which go in the face of reality are not something I can take seriously.